Monday, November 16, 2009

GOVERNMENT URGED TO ACT ON FAILINGS OF CHILDREN ACT

Twenty years on and one in three children are losing touch with their fathers when parents’ split, new research shows

Parents’ failure to separate amicably is leading to an increasing number of children losing permanent contact with their father according to a landmark study into the effects of family breakdown in the UK.

The study of over 4000 parents and children was commissioned by family lawyers at Mishcon de Reya to mark the 20th anniversary of the Children Act which was implemented in November 1989 to improve the welfare of youngsters caught in the middle of parental separation.

The report highlights the negative effects of separation on children and shows, despite the Act’s good intentions, in practice the law is not working – leaving the UK counting the financial costs of litigation, court resources and increasing numbers of socially excluded children.

Seventy per cent of parents quizzed by the law firm cited their child’s welfare as the main priority during separation. However, children said they felt used (19 per cent), isolated (38 per cent) and alone (37 per cent). Many admitted they turned to drink and drugs, played truant from school or self harmed. For 38 per cent of children the separation meant they never saw their father again.

What parents say A quarter of parents surveyed believe that their child was so traumatised by their separation that they self harmed or contemplated suicide. Despite this, 50 per cent admitted putting their children through an intrusive court process over access issues and living arrangements. Nearly half (49 per cent) admitted to deliberately protracting the legal process in order to secure their desired outcome and two thirds (68 per cent) confessed to indiscriminately using their children as ‘bargaining tools’ when they separated.

A staggering 20 per cent of separated parents admitted that they actively set out to make their partners experience ‘as unpleasant as possible’ regardless of the effect this had on their children’s feelings.

What children say Half of the children surveyed said that their views were disregarded by both of their parents during the separation.

Almost half of children polled (42 percent) witnessed aggressive rows between their parents, while a further 17 percent were caught in the middle of violent fights. A quarter (24 per cent) admitted they were forced by one parent to lie to the other and 15 per cent were asked to spy on their mother or father.

As a result, almost one in ten children (8%) considered suicide as an escape and a third sought solace in drug or alcohol abuse. The resulting effect to society is captured in the fact that 10% felt so angry and alone because of their parents’ behaviour that they turned to crime.

The financial cost As well as the emotional effect on children, statistics from the Legal Services Commission reveal that Legal Aid funding for separating parents to go to court to resolve child care arrangements is costing £151million annually – enough to employ more than 5000 extra social workers. The figure is also 56 times the amount by which the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (CAFCASS) is having to reduce its budget by in the next two years (£2.7million). CAFCASS was established in 2001 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children facing separating parents.

Mishcon de Reya’s Head of Family Law Sandra Davis said: “This research highlights shows that despite their best intentions, parents are often using their children as emotional footballs. They don’t have the tools to co-parent effectively following separation and their only solution is to turn to the courts. Children – alongside the economy - are suffering because of this.

“The millions of pounds spent each year on Legal Aid, running the courts and CAFCASS could be better spent educating parents about their children’s needs and gaining an understanding of how to resolve and avoid long term disputes and reduce hostility.”

The solution Davis is now calling on the Government to set up National Family Therapy centres. These would be funded by diverting public expenditure on Legal Aid and savings on the running costs the courts and CAFCASS. Couples who would otherwise pay privately to go to court would be charged on a sliding scale, similar to counseling schemes run by charities such as Relate.

She said: “Litigation should be the last, not the first, resort for the resolution of parental disagreements. Despite the best intentions of the judiciary, CAFCASS, specialist family law practitioners and experts the process remains fundamentally adversarial and blame focused. Whilst the courts are able to impose solutions on parents, they can’t resolve the root cause of disputes which is necessary before parents are able to co-parent effectively after they separate.”

Two thirds (64 per cent) of separated parents quizzed as part of the study said that if counselling was available they would consider attending.

Last week Mishcon de Reya invited key opinion formers to a debate that took place at Westminster to discuss how best to improve the legal process and minimize the impact of parental separation on children. Panel members included MPs from both major parties.

Said Davis: “Action is needed to protect childen from the worst excesses of parental conflict. Therapeutic input, not litigation, is the answer and will reduce the emotional and financial cost of separation.”

3 comments:

"The court process is stressful for both parents and children, it is expensive for those who are not publicly funded; it is slow and adversarial. It tends to entrench parental attitudes rather than encouraging them to change. It is ill adapted to dealing with the difficult human dilemmas involved, notably when it comes to the enforcement of its orders."

‘Making Contact Work,’ Children Act Sub-Committee of the Advisory Board on Family Law, February 2002.

“The function of ParentShare (which replaces the contact/residence dichotomy) will be backed-up by therapeutic services to assist families in transition or conflict. Family Rehabilitation works on the ‘best interests = two parents’ principle, providing services of increasing degrees of support and intervention to assist in the establishing of ParentShare arrangements, and helping the family evolve these arrangements over time as the needs of the children and parents change.

So chanel two emotionally dammaged People into an adversarial process and they fight and those around them are hurt in the process (whilst two noble legal adversaries lock antlers and make a few quid on the side)Mmmmm! Sounds like someone justifying there existence by pointing out the patently obvious.

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or* They breach court reporting rules; or* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).Please also note that I am unable to give advice.

Disclaimer

Nothing in this blog should be construed as legal advice. If you require legal advice upon any family law related matter then you should consult a solicitor. Any links to other blogs or web sites are provided for convenience only and I cannot accept any responsibility for the contents of such linked blogs/sites.